Re: (forw) Re: New document on Unbound caching DNS server

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 17:35:03 -0700
Rick Moen <rick-IyCrq+X4Fdq2oZ/[email protected]> wrote:

> Quoting Steve Litt ([email protected]):
> 
> > 2 questions to clear up, Rick:
> > 
> > 1) In your responses, when you use the word "nameserver", do you
> > always mean something that is either completely or majority
> > authoritative?
> > 
> > 2) When you use the word "client", do you really mean "resolver"?  
> 
> I've often been accused of indulging a sagebrush-dry, deadpan sense of
> humour, so I'm guessing there's a good chance that you're doing the
> same thing, here.  Nicht wahr?

Nein. Ich bin serious as hell.

> I apologise for having doubts on that matter, but on the Internet
> parody and the real thing are sometimes difficult to distinguish.
> That having been said, if those are real, not just-kidding questions,
> I'm not sure I can manage being clearer, and my prior post took the
> sort of commitment of time and effort that I regretfully can't keep
> going.

Yes, and I appreciate it.

And fortunately, I've gotten to a point where I no longer need that
kind of major input from you...

> 
> FWIW, to the best of my ability, I'm using those and other words only
> in ways conventional in DNS technical discussion, e.g., among system
> administrators, network engineers, and the broader Linux online
> technical community. 

The vernacular you describe in the preceding paragraph is failing us.
Different RFC authors use slightly different terms. Like you, I listen
to admins, engineers, the broader online tech community, and LUG
members, and what I hear is a level of ambiguity and contradiction that
make it impossible to make a series of block diagrams about DNS, which
should be fairly easy.

My original article led the way to a perfectly performent Unbound
installation, but as you mentioned, my verbiage was misleading. I was
not alone. Listen to this paragraph from
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-14 ,
which, with any luck, will become an RFC:

=====================================================================
It is important to note that, during the development of this
document, it became clear that some DNS-related terms are interpreted
quite differently by different DNS experts.  Further, some terms that
are defined in early DNS RFCs now have definitions that are generally
agreed to, but that are different from the original definitions.
Therefore, this document is a substantial revision to [RFC7719].
=====================================================================

It's not my fault, it's not your fault, and I wasn't pulling your
chain: The current state of DNS terminology is insufficient, in and of
itself, to specify anything. I thank you for bringing this to my
attention.

So here's what happened, and here's how I'll proceed...

I knew my terminology in the first draft was atrocious,  but figured
with a lot of explaining clauses and repetition I could get the point
across. You correctly called bullshit on that. I then asked you for the
standard and true terminology. You couldn't give me that because it
doesn't exist,  and without the aid of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-14 it's
not even close.

So I wrote Nlnetlabs, the guys who make Unbound, telling them I was
having trouble with terminology, and asking why they chose to call
Unbound a "resolver" instead of a "DNS server". Within less than 24
hours, an Nlnetlabs person wrote me back recommending
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-14 as the
latest and best hope for terminology, explaining why they called it a
resolver and why they didn't call it a "DNS server". At that point,
they'd given me enough to create a glossary for my web page that can
create unambiguous language suitable for specification, and also close
enough to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-14 and
also the "common use" terminology you mention as to not create an
insurrection among people who are knowledgeable.

Thank you for not letting me get away with version 1. I would have let
it slide if not for you, and you're right, that would have been a
disservice to the Internet and to myself.

Thanks,
 
SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz